I rarely forward an e-mail from another list but I just wanted you folks to see
what kind of dribble folks are trying to peddle. The far right is trading
national safety for a few misguided votes. This is sad stuff.
-----Original Message-----
From: Blind exchange and discussion <BLIND-X@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
Rovin Customer
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 2:02 AM
To: BLIND-X@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Article on face masks
Hello people, Ed Lopez back here. It has been a while sense I have been on
this list. Here is an article on face masks you may want to read very
carefully. Before anybody goes on this rave about face masks, read this first.
The Miserable Pseudo-Science Behind Face Masks, Social Distancing And Contact
Tracing POSTED BY PATRICK WOOD 1033SC ON JUNE 19, 2020 In a great suppression
of free speech, technocrats working the COVID-19 pandemic are shaming,
ridiculing, bullying and marginalizing anyone who questions their
pseudo-science and shifting positions. The state-mandated wearing of face
masks, social distancing and contact tracing are all unconstitutional and in
some cases, illegal.
By Patrick Wood, June 2020
Once upon a time, there was something called science. It included the discovery
of truth about nature, the elements, the universe, etc. It was practiced by
honest and accountable practitioners called scientists and engineers. They
often invented cool new things as a result of their studies, but generally they
had no primal urge to use their knowledge to dominate other people, groups or
even entire societies.
Then certain other scientists and engineers rose up and made a discovery of
their own. If true science was ever-so-slightly skewed and engineering
disciplines were applied to society at large, then they could indeed use their
“knowledge” to dominate and control other people, groups, entire societies or
even, heaven forbid, the entire planet.
The first group pursued science. The second group pursued pseudo-science.
Merriam-Webster defines pseudo-science as “a system of theories, assumptions,
and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.” The Oxford dictionary
clarifies by stating, “a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded
as being based on scientific method.“
Pseudo-science quickly emerged as the principal domain of Technocrats, but they
soon found that scientific debate with those promoting real science was most
inconvenient to their social engineering goals. The solution was simple: claim
that their own pseudo-science was indeed the real science, and then refuse
debate by excluding all other voices to the contrary.
In the context of pseudo-science, this report will examine the three primary
tools of fighting COVID-19: face masks, social distancing and contact tracing.
Face masks
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) website plainly states
<https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/covid-19/covid-19-faq.html> that cloth face masks
“Will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents
due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.”
But, what about surgical masks? OHSA is clear here also that they “will not
protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to
loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.”
But then right under these statements, OSHA furiously backpedaled by adding an
FAQ section on COVID-19 directly underneath and stated
<https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/covid-19/covid-19-faq.html>,
OSHA generally recommends that employers encourage workers to wear face
coverings at work. Face coverings are intended to prevent wearers who have
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) without knowing it (i.e., those who are
asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic) from spreading potentially infectious
respiratory droplets to others. This is known as source control.
Consistent with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
recommendation
<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover.html>
for all people to wear cloth face coverings when in public and around other
people, wearing cloth face coverings, if appropriate for the work environment
and job tasks, conserves other types of personal protective equipment (PPE),
such as surgical masks, for healthcare settings where such equipment is needed
most.
So, wearing a face mask cannot protect you from getting COVID, but it is
supposedly able to keep someone else from getting it from you? OSHA is speaking
out of both sides of its mouth. What it calls “source control” likely puts the
real motive out in the open: since you are the source, it’s about controlling
YOU. There is no true scientific rationale for anyone but the sick and medical
workers to wear masks.
The truly healthy have no business wearing a mask, period.
But, what about asymptomatic carriers?
On June 8, 2020, Maria Van Herkhove, PhD., head of the World Health
Organization’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit released a compilation of a
number of contact tracing programs from various nations and plainly stated
“From the data we have, it still seems to be very rare that an asymptomatic
person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual.”
This writer hates to think what happened to Dr. Herkhove overnight at the hands
of her WHO handlers, because the next day she also furiously backpedaled and
stated “I used the phrase ‘very rare,’ and I think that that’s misunderstanding
to state that asymptomatic transmission globally is very rare. I was referring
to a small subset of studies.”
It is clear that Dr. Herkhove’s first statement that naively repeated the clear
facts of the matter did not follow the WHO’s justification for non-infectious
people to wear masks. In fact, the entire mask wearing narrative hangs on the
single pseudo-scientific idea that asymptomatic people can spread the virus.
In a recent Technocracy News article authored by highly-respected neurosurgeon
Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD titled Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy,
<https://technocracy.news/blaylock-face-masks-pose-serious-risks-to-the-healthy/>
he concluded, “there is insufficient evidence that wearing a mask of any kind
can have a significant impact in preventing the spread of this virus.”
(Blaylock represents real science.)
Nevertheless, in the face of clear evidence of the worthlessness of face masks
for preventing disease,
States and municipalities are mandating that face masks be worn by all citizens
when outside their home Large and small companies are forcing their employees
to wear masks People at large are scared to death to not wear a face mask for
fear of getting sick or being mask-shamed by others if they take it off.
Breath Is Vital To Life
Many people believe that face masks lower the percentage of oxygen available
for inhaling because you rebreathe much of your exhausted breath. However, a
face mask itself does not retain a significant amount of your exhaled breath
since most of it is exhaled through the mask into the open atmosphere.
Furthermore, when you inhale, most of the air delivered to your lungs comes
from outside the mask.
The real science is much more complicated than the amount of residual air
contained within a face mask.
The real problem with breathing through a mask is that the lungs and chest
muscles must exert a lot of extra energy to inhale and exhale. In other words,
you must work harder to breathe the same amount of fresh air that you would
normally breathe without a mask.
For this reason, those who already have impaired lung functions, minor as they
may be, should never wear a mask unless it is for a specific purpose for a very
short period of time. The older you are, especially those over 70, lung
capacity and muscle strength decline rapidly.
This writer has already encountered several retail store employees, forced by
their employers to wear a face mask during work hours, who exhibit symptoms
like headache, shortness of breath or dizziness. When asked if they relate
their symptoms to wearing the mask, every single one has emphatically said
“Yes!”.
Workers with the most physically demanding jobs are the most likely to exhibit
these kind of symptoms. Other considerations are age, any preexisting
conditions of the lungs (like pleurisy, COPD, chronic bronchitis, pneumonia,
etc.) or chest muscles and factors like poor physical condition and obesity.
Actually, any debilitating health condition should be a red flag. In other
words, those who are prone to get winded without a face mask will immediately
be at a disadvantage when wearing a mask. The net effect is that the lungs
receive less fresh air with vital oxygen even as the body is under more
physical stress.
Every employer and government entity that mandates the wearing of face masks
should be required to do two things: first, they should carefully consider each
employee as an individual to determine their suitability for wearing a mask.
All factors mentioned above should be included, and in any case, no one should
be required to wear a mask if it puts too much stress on their lungs.
Many state-level politicians are now mandating the wearing of face masks for
all citizens in public places. They have fallen prey to pseudo-science and are
now putting entire populations at risk for physical harm that has nothing to do
with the COVID-19 virus.
In sum, lung strength, physical condition, age, pre-existing conditions,
physical demands of the job, etc., should all be carefully considered by all. A
blanket statement that all employees or all citizens should wear face masks it
wholly inappropriate.
Social Distancing
Adding to the fear of contagion, people across the nation are driven to
practice social distancing, or staying 6 feet apart at all times. This is
practiced to excess in almost every commercial establishment with markers taped
or painted on the floor and shopping isles converted into one-way travel only.
Yet, two real scientists at the University of Oxford in Britain, Professors
Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, wrote in The Telegraph
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/15/no-scientific-evidence-support-disastrous-two-metre-rule/>
(UK) recently that “the two-metre rule has no basis in science.” Their article
was titled There is no scientific evidence to support the disastrous two-metre
rule.
According to these scientists,
The influential Lancet review provided evidence from 172 studies in support of
physical distancing of one metre or more. This might sound impressive, but all
the studies were retrospective and suffer from biases that undermine the
reliability of their findings. Recall bias arises in research when participants
do not remember previous events accurately, and it is problematic when studies
look back in time at how people behaved, including how closely they stood from
others.
More concerning was that only five of the 172 studies reported specifically on
Covid exposure and proximity with infection. These studies included a total of
merely 477 patients, with just 26 actual cases of infection. In only one study
was a specific distance measure reported: “came within six feet of the index
patient”. The result showed no effect of distance on contracting Covid.
Heneghan and Jefferson further noted,
On further independent inspection of 15 studies included in the review, we
found multiple inconsistencies in the data, numerical mistakes and unsound
methods in 13 of them. When assumptions over distance were made, we could not
replicate any of them.
This is the hallmark of modern pseudo-science: inconsistencies in the data,
numerical mistakes, unsound methods and inability to replicate results.
What is the real purpose of social distancing? It certainly is not to curtail
contagion. The only other possibility is to curtail economic activity and
prevent social cohesion. Humans are social beings, after all, and lack of close
proximity leads to depression, anxiety and even serious health consequences.
Contact Tracing
Contact tracing is an established practice in modern medicine. It is useful for
the early stages of serious infectious diseases like Ebola, tuberculosis and
sexually transmitted diseases like chlamydia.
Every credible expert on contact tracing says that it is effective only up to
the point of mass distribution. In other words, during the early stages of a
contagion or a slow moving or very serious disease.
In the case of COVID-19, the horse has already left the barn. Except to harass
people, there is nothing useful that contact tracing can accomplish.
Yet, almost every state in America is implementing a wide-ranging contact
tracing program that may ultimately employ some 300,000 tracers.
The Center for Disease Control website states that
<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/contact-tracing-plan/contact-tracing.html>
“Contact tracing will be conducted for close contacts
<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/contact-tracing-plan/appendix.html#contact>
(any individual within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 15 minutes)
of laboratory-confirmed or probable COVID-19 patients.”
Furthermore, CDC complete definition of “close contact” is,
Someone who was within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 15 minutes
starting from 2 days before illness onset (or, for asymptomatic patients, 2
days prior to specimen collection) until the time the patient is isolated.
If you are “exposed” to such a person, your personal information will be
collected and you will be contacted by the “tracer” to be instructed to
quarantine for up to two weeks. The infected person could have been mistaken
about having contact with you. They could be someone who just wants to get you
in trouble. If you live in Washington state, where all restaurants are now
required to record the contact information of every patron, you might not have
a clue who was infected, but you will be quarantined anyway.
Now, the CDC’s declaration of “6 feet” above takes us back to social
distancing, where we just learned above that there is “no effect of distance on
contracting COVID” in the first place.
Thus, find that contact tracing misses the mark on two main points: first, the
virus is too widespread throughout the population to make tracing effective and
second, the criteria of six feet for defining a “contact” is bogus.
So, why are governors, mayors and health departments ramping up for a
nationwide exercise in obtrusive contact tracing? Again, pursuing a path of
pseudo-science, the intended outcome is control over people.
Conclusion
The American public is being spoon-fed a steady diet of pseudo-science in order
to justify the wearing of face masks, social distancing and contact tracing.
Yet, the actual science points in the polar opposite direction.
Furthermore, those who try to present the real science are shamed, ridiculed
and bullied for having such narrow-minded views.
This is a clear sign of Technocrats-at-work. Instead, these are the ones who
should be exposed, shamed and ridiculed.
In sum, these dangerous and destructive policies are designed to curtail
economic activity, break down social cohesion and control people. Moreover,
they fit the original mission statement of Technocracy as far back as 1938:
Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of
the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the
entire population…
It is highly doubtful that most state and local leaders understand the lack of
real and verified science behind their actions and mandates. Nevertheless, they
are implementing policies that are destructive to our economic system, harmful
to our personal health and ruinous to personal liberty.
